Power and policymaking

This thesis is concerned with approaches to policymaking analysis. It argues that dominant neo-pluralist theories of policymaking have limited explanatory force. This arises from the method of inquiry, which necessarily limits the scope of analysis. The emphasis on inductive methods, coupled with a narrow focus on nonformalised sub-state networks, produces a model which is a useful way of identifying non-state policy actors, but which has no explanatory capacity outside such networks. In particular two weaknesses in network analysis are highlighted as significant. The first is that neo-pluralism does not account for the possible constraint on meso-level activity by the state. The state's ability to constrain individual agency may arise either from its position as a distinct social actor, or from it being an aspect of structural constraint. As this latter point implies, the second key weakness with neo-pluralist network analysis is owing to its structural indeterminism. The thesis argues that an adequate account of the policymaking process must recognise the possibility of limits to actor autonomy which arise from individual interaction with structure. Although the argument is made for a structural dimension to policymaking analysis, it concedes the dangers of functionalism and determinism which can arise from the application of structural frameworks. Consequently, the thesis argues for a duality of structure and agency as the core of political analysis. This argument is made on theoretical grounds, and via discussion of an empirical case study of the EU Task Force Environment: Water. The argument then is for a dual approach to policymaking which utilises both inductive and deductive methods. It is argued (a) that a Marxist analysis of the state and the structural constraints of capitalism can be combined (although not integrated) with networks analysis in a dual approach, and (b) that this combination provides the best model of policymaking

"Citizenship: The real democratic deficit of the European Union?"

Given the pressures of globalisation, the nation state is limited in its control over public policy agendas, particularly in the field of social policy. The response of domestic governments to the heat of international competition has been to create more flexible, post-welfare state economies. A significant consequence of this development is the removal of social rights and the acceleration of social exclusion. This gap which has opened up could be filled by the European Union, but it has so far failed to take a leading role in this regard. So, as European citizens we should be concerned that the forces which operate to balance the harsher effects of the free market have been lost at the European, supranational level. There are three central reasons why this is the case: 1) the EU consists of fifteen member states with competing, historically rooted understandings of social protection and, therefore, social rights; 2) defining social rights is traditionally a state derived function and as such, the absence of an EU state means the absence of comprehensive citizen protection; 3) these two factors are magnified by the relative weaknesses of the supranational institutions and democratic deficit between the key EU institutions (weak vis-à-vis member state governments and with regard to the supremacy of the market)